For the first time ever, a U.S. regulatory agency denied a coal plant permit solely on the basis of its carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a main contributor to global warming.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) denied permits to two large, 700-megawatt plants proposed by Sunflower Electric Power. The plants would have cost about $3.6 billion and spewed 11 million tons of CO2 into the air each year. That’s almost the same amount of CO2 that the Northeastern states planned to have saved by 2020 with their cap-and-trade program. The attorneys general of those states had petitioned Kansas officials to deny the coal plants that would have effectively negated their efforts.

Interestingly, while the KDHE staff recommended that the plants be permitted, state law also allows the KDHE secretary to deny a permit if there is an unregulated emission that threatens public health or the environment. And that’s what happened here: Secretary Roderick L. Bremby disagreed with his staff because of the unregulated CO2 emissions that pose a threat to global warming. He wrote in his news release: "I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore emerging information about the contribution of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to climate change and the potential harm to our environment and health if we do nothing."

Kansas also has a goal of getting 10 percent of its electricity at peak period from wind power. The electric cooperatives will meet that goal by the end of the year — two years ahead of the deadline.

A Sunflower Electric Power spokesman pointed out that the company could build natural gas plants that emit half the amount of CO2, but they also have a much higher fuel cost than coal. So once again we’re back to the business problem of not having a price on CO2 emissions (such as through a cap-and-trade or carbon tax policy). Without a price on CO2, there is no "common yardstick" for determining whether the additional fuel cost of natural gas is offset by the less CO2 emitted. While the Kansas decision may set a precedent for other regulatory bodies around the country, the federal government also needs to spell out the CO2 rules for businesses and utilities.

Kansas City Star
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
New York Times
Washington Post

Coal and nuclear plants may not be dropping like flies, but the business climate and the planet’s climate have caused some utilities to think twice about investing in them.

Tampa Electric of Florida has announced that it won’t build a coal plant to meet future energy needs, as originally planned. The coal plant was going to be an integrated gasification combined-cycle plant, or IGCC, which means that the coal is broken down into different gases that make it easier to pull out and store the carbon dioxide (CO2) so it doesn’t get released into the atmosphere. It’s still a very expensive technology and has yet to be tested on a very large scale, but because the U.S. is so reliant on coal power, many believe sequestration is the only way to cut emissions fast enough to slow global warming.

Tampa Electric cited the uncertain future regulation of CO2, the challenge of carbon capture and sequestration, and the associated costs. Although the utility sees IGCC as playing a significant role in future energy needs, the economic risks were too high and too uncertain at this time to proceed. Instead, the utility will look at other technologies like renewables, natural gas, and efficiency. Florida has also had a slew of new clean energy laws, including limits on global warming emissions and requiring utilities to get 20 percent of their electricity from renewables.

Likewise, Xcel Energy says it can delay the need for new baseload generation in Minnesota because of its diversification into new, cleaner energy (particularly wind power and efficiency measures). Xcel argued that more hydropower from Canada — not considered “green” by many because of its destruction to native communities there — and upgrades to nuclear plants are not needed because of the aggressive energy bills passed during the last legislative session. Those laws direct Xcel to get 30 percent of its energy from renewable sources and to begin cutting energy use 1.5 percent annually beginning in 2010. Xcel’s own analysis concluded: “[C]learly there will be periods when available wind energy will supplant base-load resources to meet our customers’ energy needs.”

Diversifying our energy sources and emphasizing efficiency measures have started impacting how utilities do business and how their customers power their lives. While there is no silver bullet for a clean energy future, changes like these are all part of the “silver BB” approach to get us moving towards a smarter energy system in the 21st century.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

The Energy Blog
Wind Energy Weekly

Former President Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative has been all over the news lately, working with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and big business to move the ball forward with clean energy solutions to global warming. Whatever you think of the guy, it’s hard to deny that his partnerships are impressive and the results could be revolutionary.

Besides the agreement by utilities to invest in energy efficiency, and besides Florida Power & Light’s major new commitment to solar energy, the Clinton Global Initiative is also partnering with the Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy (JUUCCCE) on efficiency efforts in China.

The China Lighting Conversion program will distribute 10 million free energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) to customers. CFLs use one-third the energy of traditional bulbs, but are still cost-prohibitive to many Chinese. According to JUUCCCE, the CFLs would save about 3.7 million tons of CO2 over 4 ½ years — enough to avoid having to build one typical U.S.-size coal plant. While I tell myself it’s encouraging to see the start of another clean energy commitment in China, I’m still disheartened by the multiple coal plants they’re building each week. But change has to start somewhere.

The other JUUCCCE program is the Energy Efficient Urban Design Tools for Mayors. This is an interactive, multimedia curriculum to train hundreds of Chinese mayors on technology and best practices that can make their cities more energy efficient. Mayors will learn about green building programs, for example, and will connect with vendors, service providers and financial advisors to help them implement what they learn. The key with this program will be rigorous follow-up and support to ensure that the information learned isn’t forgotten or lost in the bureaucracy one the mayor returns to the city.

The first phase will begin with the CFL program in April 2008, with the training for mayors to start in October of next year.

Joint U.S.-China Cooperation on Clean Energy

Thanks to Erin over at RE-AMP for the heads-up on this great piece of news: Eight major utilities have agreed to implement energy efficiency measures in order to meet the growing demand for electricity. By emphasizing efficiency over coal, they will cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 30 million tons — the equivalent of taking almost 6 million cars off the road — and avoid the need to build 50 500-megawatt peaking power plants.

The utilities involved have more than 20 million customers and cover 22 states: Con Edison (ED), Edison International (EIX), Great Plains Energy (GXP), Duke Energy (DUK), Pepco Holdings (POM), PNM Resources (PNM), Sierra Pacific Resources (SRP), and Xcel Energy (XEL). Up until now, the only utilities that want to grow profits through energy efficiency investments have been in California.

The move by these utilities comes at a time when demand is growing, concerns and lawsuits about emissions abound, and global warming is a hot political and business issue.

Energy efficiency is the cheapest and fastest way to cut global warming emissions, and the utilities agree: ” …we share a common belief that energy efficiency is the greatest untapped resource in addressing global climate change in the near-term.” Here are the major elements of their plan:

• Boost investments in energy efficiency projects to $1.5 billion per year in the next 10 years.

• Create a national institute for electric efficiency. The Energy Efficiency Institute will work on regulatory policy models, notably how utilities can make money when customers use less energy rather than more. It will be formed within the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned utilities.

Innovation and multi-party collaboration will be needed to craft policies that allow companies to profit from investing in efficiency. Utilities could profit from replacing inefficient air conditioners and light bulbs, for instance. Great Plains hopes to get legislation passed in Kansas and Missouri that would allow them to earn a higher return on efficiency investments than what would be made investing in traditional power plants. The utility could install smart electricity meters that tell customers when electricity prices are highest and even allows the utility to adjust the operations of appliances in customer homes. Michael Chesser, Chairman and CEO of Great Plains, said that energy efficiency, “with the right incentives,” could take care of all the growth in electricity demand between 2010 and 2017.

The business community was also interested by the announcement. The Dow Jones Wire commented:

It’s a sign of how quickly energy efficiency has taken center stage in the utility industry’s growth plans. Even in states where rates are low, power companies increasingly see efficiency investments as an inexpensive way to satisfy growing electricity demand and boost revenue without provoking the public opposition that usually dogs proposals for new power plants and transmission lines.

The utilities are working in partnership with the Clinton Global Initiative, backed by former President Bill Clinton’s foundation.

Cross posted on Maria Energia

Kansas City Star
Dow Jones Wire
Yahoo Finance

Clean energy was the hot topic at the National Press Club this week, where public leaders gathered to discuss "Securing a Clean Energy Future." Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was there, as was Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (D) and Minnesota Governor and president of the National Governors Association (NGA), Tim Pawlenty (R).

Pawlenty explained that cutting global warming emissions was a top priority for the group of governors, with the hope that it would spur federal action. From the Associated Press: "We have a federal government that doesn’t seem to want to move as fast or as bold as many would like" on these issues, Pawlenty said… If enough states act to curtail greenhouse gases, "it becomes a de facto national policy.”

So far, 12 states have plans to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, a major contributor to global warming.

The NGA announced an 8-governor task force to advance clean energy development in the states, and the Energy Department promised $610,000 to support its work.

But we may want to dig a little deeper into Pawlenthy’s enthusiasm. He supports the construction of the dirty Big Stone II coal plant, proposed for two miles over the Minnesota border in South Dakota. Minnesota is slated to receive a large portion of its electricity, and also has a say in the construction of the plant.

Pawlenty said that he disagrees with the statement "the future involved no coal"; he wants "clean" coal technology and carbon sequestration. Okay, but the controversial Big Stone II plant has neither of those, and some worry that its construction will make it harder for Minnesota to reach its renewable energy standard of 25 percent renewables by 2020. Pawlenty conceded that there would be an "awkward five-year transition in between and in the meantime the world goes on." Except that the coal plants hang around for 50 years.

Associated Press
Union of Concerned Scientists

Despite Americans’ rightful wariness of nuclear power, other nations are embracing it: France gets 75 percent of its electricity from it, Australian Prime Minister John Howard called nuclear power “inevitable,” and Finland is building a new reactor.

In fact, the U.S.’s Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is expecting 12 new applications to build nuclear power reactors at seven different sites, plus another 15 are in the pipeline for next year. These are the first full applications to build new nuclear plants in 30 years…what gives?

Oil located in unstable regions of the world and climate change concerns are some oft-sited reasons for the increased interest in nukes. Why try to work with unstable, corrupt governments that have oil when you can mine uranium in places where you’d vacation, like Australia and Canada? Why deal with CO2-spewing coal plants when you can take a deep breath next to a nuclear plant? Except for that huge hairy problem of the dangerous waste hanging around for thousands of years…

Additionally, the NRC has implemented some new processes to apparently make the approval process easier:

• Rather than require utilities to get two different licenses – one to build the plant and the other to start it up – utilities can apply for one license that covers both areas.
• Firms can get nuclear reactor designs cleared in advance. So if a reactor gets the green light, only the modifications unique to the site have to be reviewed.
• A utility can ask the NRC to approve a location before it even applies for a combined license.
• The NRC is hiring about 200 new staff every year and has set up a field office in George to deal with the particularly high number of southern utilities interested in nuclear plants.

Despite these changes, the NRC says it will still take over three years to review an application and conduct hearings.

The problem of what to do with nuclear waste is and should continue to be a serious and significant barrier, and Americans are still divided in their opinion of nuclear energy; in a March poll, about half of respondents favored expanding it. But a September 6th story in the Economist points out that nuclear may start to look more appealing as coal plants face a “regulatory risk” due to assumed future carbon regulation. Just as some energy watchers talk about a “coal rush” (the rush to build coal plants before carbon regulation takes effect), could we see a “nuclear rush” after federal carbon regulation is implemented?

The Economist
Wikipedia

Two proposed coal-fired power plants in Iowa could negate the state’s efforts to cut emissions with clean, renewable power.

LS Power Group wants to build a 750-megawatt (MW) plant near Waterloo, and Alliant Energy wants a 630 MW coal plant near Marshalltown. A new MidAmerican Energy coal plant just began operation near Council Bluffs on June 1.

Local and regional supporters of clean and efficient energy will fight the plants. Besides the economic drain of having to import coal from Wyoming, supporters argue that powering the Iowa’s ethanol plants with coal power does not make environmental sense or economic sense. Cleaner methods of production – like using a biomass gasification system to produce ethanol – is a smarter choice, noted Carrie LaSeur of the Iowa law firm Plains Justice: “Biofuels are supposed to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and reduce CO2. Using coal to power a biofuels plant has the opposite effect…Coal is a thing of the past. Why keep falling back on this old technology, when clean alternatives are out there?”

The Iowa Utilities Board still has to approve construction of both plants, but this situation is duplicated across the U.S., where 150 new coal plants are proposed. Worries about imminent carbon regulation seem to have mixed results: while plans for about two dozen coal plants have been scrapped since 2006, other companies are rushing to build before new regulations take effect, with the assumption that their plants would be grandfathered in under any new emissions requirements.

While more than half of U.S. states have renewable energy standards that require a certain percentage of power to come from renewables, the construction of a coal plant or two can quickly unravel all the good intentions. The left hand has to pay attention to what the right hand is doing here, and we can’t have it both ways if we’re serious about creating a rich, clean energy economy while slowing global warming.

Associated Press, via Quad Cities Online
Iowa Environmental Council

On Sunday, the Western Governor’s Association unanimously passed a resolution titled “Transitioning the West to Clean Energy and Energy Security.” The document highlights the need for diverse energy resources (including coal), energy efficiency, and carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration. The actionable results or “management directives” include:

• Plan a workshop to determining the most expeditious way to achieve energy efficiency savings from new and existing residential and commercial/public buildings.

• Hold a forum on transmission needs to accommodate the integration of large amounts of renewable generation in the Western power system.

• Work with federal agencies to identify and mitigate the risks associated with carbon sequestration and develop a pipeline transport system that can move CO2 to enhanced oil recovery and sequestration areas.

• Work with federal agencies to secure funding for near-zero emission coal pilot facilities (i.e. coal plants) and examine accelerating the deployment of near-zero emissions coal technology.

• Determine the most effective way to use federal funds to research and develop technologies that would reduce the cost to develop solar, wind, geothermal, bio-fuel and biomass projects.

I wouldn’t use the term “clean energy” in this resolution. Perhaps cleaner is a better term, as coal should certainly not be lumped in the same category as wind, solar, and geothermal power that emit no global warming emissions.

Notably, the Western Governors Association did come out against Congressman Nick Rahall’s bill that threatens to slow and complicate the progress of wind power.

Thanks to Jon over at Loon Commons for the heads-up on this announcement.

Hog House Blog
Western Governors’ Association

If lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming, they will have to face another giant to make real progress: A government program, hailing from the Depression era, that sends billions of dollars of low-interest loans to rural areas to build coal plants. The Rural Electrification Administration was created in 1935 by President Franklin Roosevelt to bring electricity to U.S. farms. The mission has been accomplished, but the money keeps coming.

Rural electric cooperatives ("co-ops") are nonprofit organizations that distribute electricity and are owned by their customers. There are more than 800 of them across the U.S., and more than 50 of them own a power plant. The co-ops plan to spend $35 billion to build old-fashioned coal plants over the next 10 years. A sobering reality check: That’s enough to offset all state and federal efforts to cut CO2 emissions over that time.

The Office of Management and Budget wants to end the loans for new power plants and limit the ones for transmission projects in the most remote areas. But the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association is a powerful lobby, and sent 3,000 members to Capitol Hill last week to keep the lending program rolling, arguing that the new coal plants are needed to keep energy cheap and reliable.

Glenn English, chief executive of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, pointed out that taxable utilities get tax breaks to encourage renewable energy projects and efficiency measures, but rural co-ops can’t. He wants Congress to give the nonprofit co-ops incentives too, like no-interest loans.

Besides political influence, co-ops often carry a lot of clout in their communities because they are more involved than just distributing electricity. English explained that one co-op reopened a gas station that went out of business. Another bought and kept open the local Dairy Queen.

Others argue that many of the co-ops shouldn’t qualify as rural anymore because of their expansion into densely populated zones, like Dallas-Fort Worth area and Atlanta. Additionally, the low-interest money they receive removes any incentive to promote energy efficiency or go after renewable resources. In fact, rural co-ops get on average 80 percent of their electricity from coal, compared to 50 percent with the rest of the country. Their energy demand is also growing at twice the national rate.

This is going to be a tough political issue for Congress to tackle. Both sides may have valid points, but the system must be restructured to be a more efficient process that emphasizes clean, renewable, local energy. If not, than all the state and federal goals, programs, and initiatives that aim to cut climate change emissions will be simply blown away.

Washington Post

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) launched an initiative in April to make the Capitol complex carbon neutral within two years.

To achieve this, the “Green the Capitol” initiative includes changing out 17,000 old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs for more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs and using eco-friendly vendors for furnishings.

But the big elephant in the room (and I’m not talking about a Republican) is what to do about the electricity source of the Capitol: a coal plant.

The Capitol Power Plant burns mostly coal and natural gas, along with some oil for heating and cooling. So to make the Capitol carbon neutral, something has to be done about the coal being burned practically next door (coal makes up 49 percent of the plant's output). But Speaker Pelosi was vague and noncommittal about action to clean up the plant:

"The recommendations that the people who know about this will put forth is what we will act upon, and there are issues involved with the power plant that we have to learn more about."

Complicating the matter are lawmakers from coal producing states, like Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who are major defenders of coal and blocked an effort in 2000 to eliminate it from the Capitol Power Plant. CNN reports that two West Virginia companies – International Resources Inc and the Kanawha Eagle mine - provide 40,000 net tons of coal to the plant, earning $4.6 million. According to campaign records, the companies gave a combined $26,300 to Byrd and McConnell’s campaigns in the 2006 election cycle.

If the Capitol Power Plant remains unchanged, the Capitol would have to spend $850,000 to buy carbon credits for its 340,000 tons of global warming emissions. Switching the plant over to natural gas would cost between $5 million and $8 million more each year, but a draft report obtained by CNN says that the cost could be absorbed by the savings gained from not paying to dispose of the fly ash.

The chief administrative officer of the House will submit a final report on the carbon neutral initiatives by June 30th.

Lawmakers have some big hurdles to clear if the Capitol is to be carbon neutral. But if they can’t get our own Capitol cleaned up, how can we trust them to lead the entire country towards a clean, 21st century energy system?

CNN
Washington Times